Conquering by Stealth and Deception

How the
Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control
and World Power

By Katherine Yurica

September 14, 2004

Paul Weyrichs
Secret Manual on How to Win Politically

Since the writing and posting of my essay,
The Despoiling of Americain February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not
only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters
are winning it. Dominionism now looks more like a
term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers
and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing
resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe
in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted
a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine,[1]
the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute
their cabal. It was expressed this way by a Yurica Report
talk board participant:

One of the
more sinister aspects of the current crisis is the influence
of Leo Strauss on the pro-war, neo-cons who are determining
so much of our foreign policy. While the Christian right thinks
it is running the show, Leo Strauss irreligious philosophy
is actually in control. Strauss believed that the rulers should
not be religious, but should use religion to manage the people
 which he evidently regarded as a stupid herd. He also
believed that a state of war was great for controlling and directing
the masses. So its all come together: the weirdest book
of the bible [Revelations], with its mysterious disasters; the
scheming behind the scenes warmongers and an incident of terrorism
that has served admirably as the Project for a New American Centurys
hoped-for new Pearl Harbor. Adrien Rain

Americans and the main-stream media have
been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a wara
war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not
mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted
manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can
get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the
man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders
consider Weyrich to be the most powerful man in American
politics today. There is no question of his immense influence
in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of
the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with
funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich
served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.

To get a sense of how revolutionary the
political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at
a few quotes from what has been dubbed, Paul Weyrichs
Teaching Manual, the Free Congress Foundations strategic
plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written
by Eric Heubeck, and titled, The Integration of Theory
and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,
the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundations
website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the
Yurica Report.
The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics
they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:

I have paraphrased the four immoral principles
of the Dominionist movement as the following:

1)Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity.
The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken
with vigor, energy and dedication.

2)It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of goodness
whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as evil.

3)Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished
through unrelenting personal attacks.

4)The creation of the appearance of overwhelming
power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will
of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.

Eric
Heubeck, the author of Mr. Weyrichs manual, does not
mince words. Here is a sample of the most immoral political program
ever adopted by a political movement in this country. Notice
that the manual begins with the adoption of the fundamental fact
of Machiavellianism:

This essay
is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary
reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and
dedication of the ideas promotersin other words,
the individuals composing a social or political movement

We
must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel
cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant
leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of
these institutions will require the development of a movement
that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative
movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede itif
it is to succeed at allbecause it will pursue a very different
strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role
in society .

There will
be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first
stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated
elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage
will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to
make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority
of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall
character of American popular culture .

Our
movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive.
We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only
intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor
to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every
opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated
to the creation of our own institutions .

We will maintain
a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack
the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moments
rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve
to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.
We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative,
there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness
and decay of todays American culture, they will be embraced
by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection
of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished
by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.

We will use
guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant
regime

We must create
a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating
people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism
but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities,
multinational corporations, and university administrators. We
must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening
their mouths

We will be
results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making
a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less
important than advancing the goals of the movement

We need more
people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts
those kinds of people .We must reframe this struggle
as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle
between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain
why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove
this using images and simple terms .

In actuality, the concept that dominionist
minded conservatives should establish parallel or dual institutions
is a new form of segregation. This is especially apparent when
a conservative institution offers the same services or products
as the liberal oriented institutions. In other words, if it is
not possible for dominionists to takeover or grab power in every
institutionthey create a parallel world so that the left
is to be separated and segregated from the right and conservatives
are urged to purchase from the conservative institutions.

The fact that Weyrichs plan has actually
been instituted is all around us. The Council on Foreign Relations
is mimicked by the secretive dominionist Council for National
Policy.[2]
The so called liberal press is countered with
Fox News and Sun Myung Moons Washington Times, and
dominionist talk show hosts spew their right wing political views
and venom from coast to coast. Public schools are countered with
private home
and chartered schools. And in the last few months a move
has been made within the churches to break-up and divide denominations
along the lines of conservative beliefs in certain social
issues so that two sets of churches will be created: one that
practices right wing politics and one that is liberal!

It almost mimics what Jesus said he would
do in the Bible: those on the Lords left will be cast into
outer darkness, those on the Lords right will be the chosen
elect, the over-comers of Gods people. This biblical imagery
appears to be a powerful biblical affirmation for church-goers
who desire to be on the Lords right politically
as welluntil one realizes that when the two groups of people
stand facing the Lordthe mirror image is reversed: those
on his right will be those facing him on the left; those on the
Lords left will be those facing him on the Lords
right! Its just an aside, but it suggests to me that
justice will actually be done, when the Lord says, I never
knew you to those who loudly proclaim their hypocritical
religious devotion to him, while ignoring his command to feed
the poor and cloth the naked. The biblical passage goes on to
say that those about to be cast out ask, When did we fail
to feed the poor and cloth the naked? The answer is: In
as much as you did it unto the least of these my childrenyou
did it unto me. When dominionists seek to privatize medicare
and social security, and deregulate corporate controls on whole
industries, so that the poor and needy become poorer and needier,
they have done it to the Lord.

The Myth of Terrorism
and How the Corporate
Complex Joined the Power Grab

Yes! To this thought I hold with firm
persistence;The last result of wisdom stamps it true:He only earns his freedom and existence,Who daily conquers them anew.Thus here, by dangers girt, shall glide
awayOf childhood, manhood, age, the vigorous
day:And such a throng I fain would see,--Stand on free soil among a people free!Then dared I hail the Moment fleeing:Ah, still delaythou art
so fair!

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, from Faust

The entire strategic conversion of the U.S.A.
and its constitutional order into a theocratic corporate market-state
is based upon an alleged threat to the security of
the country. The political analysis of how, why and the historical
necessity for the market-state has been laid out
in a book for all of us to read. Its the road map that
joins the corporate world with the religious world.

The eloquent analysis from an eloquent and
brilliant mind can be found and read in: The Shield
of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt. Alfred A. Knopf, New York,
2002. Almost the entire book was written prior to September 11,
2001; however Bobbitt made insertions into his text to account
for 9/11s impact upon Americas foreign and domestic
policies. Bobbitt uses Shell's Scenario Planning as his model
to test possible scenarios in risk planning for the future. His
book was being offered for sale at several think tank web sites
when I decided to purchase it. He is a lawyer--professor of Constitutional
Law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin. Inscriptions
in two of his books show that he may have had a recent Christian
conversion experience. He's a brilliant man. He was a fellow
at King's College, London, in the War Studies Department and
was counselor on international law at the Department of State.
He was the director of intelligence, senior director for critical
infrastructure and senior director for strategic planning at
the National Security Council (under Clinton). He cites Condoleezza
Rice' writings several times in the book.

Time Magazine published Bobbitt's
essay explaining his book on September 9, 2002. He wrote:

If September
11 is the forerunner of a new world conflict, coping with the
conflict could bring a new constitutional order in its wake.
In the 21st century, what might be called market states
could replace nation-states. Market states will have the same
borders and political systems as nation-states but will shift
important responsibilities from government to the private sector;
multinational corporations will become surrogate agents of government,
filling roles that government can no longer play and blurring
the boundaries between political and corporate leadership....

My response to Mr. Bobbitt is this: Corporations
are not democratic bodies. They do not make good governments. (I
have 20 years of experience working within a corporate entity
that attempts to govern a community. Its record is dismal; it
acknowledges no constitutional rights for its citizens. Only
the bylaws and Articles of Incorporation hold sway and even these
are frequently broken should it be advantageous for the board
to do so.)

I call Bobbitt a dominionist based on his
political preferences and his religious leanings. For instance
Bobbitt prefers the privatization of medical care, social security,
pensions and schools. (At page 671.) He prefers the discouragement
of government regulations of any kind and will tolerate income
disparities. He prefers that job creation be achieved at the
cost of job security. And he prefers an all-volunteer military.
[3]

Moreover, Bobbitt prefers a laizze faire
entrepreneurial market-state that is confrontational
to workers as opposed to two other possible market states which
he creates as models: The mercantile model (in which
he says consumer opportunities are sacrificed to the long-term
opportunities of the society as a whole) and the managerial
model, which he says is often called the Soziale Marktwirtschaft,
(p. 672) (Social Free-Market Economy) that provides a social
safety net for society. Thus Bobbitt places himself completely
in line with the political rights agenda. Moreover, while
holding the Christian banner aloft, he that Christianity betrays.
For he willingly places corporate business interests above the
welfare of the people. In my understanding of the scriptures,
Bobbitts model is not a Christian modelit is in fact
the antithesis of Christianity. (In this I agree with Jimmy
Carter.)

One of the more astonishing statements I
came across in Bobbitts discussion and praise for the entrepreneurial
market-state is this:

The Entrepreneurial
Model tends to loosen the identification that citizens feel with
the larger polity: autonomy and individual achievement are so
prized and the consumption of particular goods so meaningful
an act of self-definition that the citizens of these states invent
their citizenships, identifying themselves with those subgroups
within the state with whom they share a consumption pattern.
(Page 670.)

Mr. Bobbitt has just described corporate
heaven! But in reality, Bobbitt is envisioning a Faustian perversity,
for he replaces Fausts vision of a free people standing
on free landthe American idealwith a vision of citizens
identifying with their peers based on each others pattern
of purchases. Faust was willing to give his eternal soul for
his vision of freedom. What price does Bobbitt and the religious-right
pay for their vision I wonder?

Lets look at another vision. This
one is based in fear. Bobbitt regards terrorist groups as virtual
states. What an incredible elevation of the Mafia concept.
We are asked to accept superpower equivalence for those criminals
who have the imagination to network! Hence the war against the
virtual state can last 100 years or more. Bobbitts emersion
in war and his fear of attacks blinds him to issues of what is
moral in warfare. He lumps retaliatory military strikes by the
U.S. for an attack upon the U.S. with pre-emptive strikes against
an alleged enemy.

I want to contrast two passages. One is
written by Bobbitt, the other by Mr. Bushs writers.
First Mr. Bobbitt:

 [N]uclear
weapons strategy, clandestine intelligence collection, and covert
action sometimes require a level of secrecy that is incompatible
with open government or even the relation between parliamentary
oversight and the citizenry that links government to the people It
is simply absurd to think that a system of nuclear deterrence
could be maintained if the president had to go to Congress for
a declaration of war before launching a retaliatory or pre-emptive
strike. (p. 235)

In September, 2002, Mr. Bush delivered a
document to congress titled, The National Security Strategy
of the United States of America. In it congressmen
read:

For centuries,
international law recognized that nations need not suffer an
attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves
against forces that present an imminent danger of attack .We
must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities
and objectives of todays adversaries. Rogue states and
terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means Instead,
they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destructionweapons that can be easily concealed,
delivered covertly, and used without warning To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States
will, if necessary, act preemptively.

Mr. Bush needs war. Mr. Bobbitt sells the
idea of the necessity of war in this quote:

There is
a widespread view that war is simply a pathology of the State,
that healthy states will not fight wars. This view ignores the
role strategy plays in the formation and continuance of states.
War, like law, sustains the State by giving it the means to carry
out its purposes of protection, preservation, and defense.
(p. 780)

How Machiavellian Mr. Bobbitt sounds. Peace
is bad for us. And war is not only goodits a necessity.

I would add this: Mr. Bushs April,
2004 press conference brought a new vision I had not heard before:
America he said, is called to bring
freedom and liberty to the people of the world. It immediately
reminded me of Pat Robertsons phrases. The words liberty
and freedom had special meaning to him and to Christians
like Patrick Henry: Liberty carries a heavy responsibility.
It demands Christian self government  (This
definition was offered on the 700 Club on July 1, 1986.)

Does Mr. Bush mean that the U.S. will preemptively
invade other heathen and uncivilized
nations and establish Christian governments over
them? Maybe.

Lastly, in closing his book, Philip Bobbitt
reiterates his own uppermost emotion: We are entering a
fearful time, a time that will call on all our resources, moral
as well as intellectual and material  He then closes
his amazing work with this:

I said to
the man who stood at the Gate of the Year: Give me a light,
that I might tread safely into the unknown. And he replied,
Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand
of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than
a known way. (p. 823)

As a Christian, I always thought that God
was light or illumination and this is particularly true because
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." I also took
to heart Psalm 23: where we are taught to fear no evil.
In the end, all that Philip Bobbitt has is the fact that he is
surrounded by darkness. He has placed his hand in the hand of
someone he thought was God, but he cannot really see who it is
that is holding his hand.

Pity the nation that submerges itself in
fear and its rhetoric. Americans and the British did not get
through WWII by dwelling on fear. They did not overcome their
enemies by cowering in the darkness and placing their hands in
the hand of an unknown stranger. They won because they overcame
their fears and outfought their enemies. That is our task once
again. These are not fearful times. These are the
days of creativity and courage. Since when has any nation trembled
before a handful of criminals? Call them what you mayPirates?
Outlaws? Gangs? Or Goliath? They have never had a future much
less a projection of a hundred years of successful criminality.
Our world has never been safe from dangers: mankind has been
subjected to earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, diseases, accidents,
and has not death visited both the young and old? But civilization
keeps marching on. Let us never follow false leaders into the
valley of fear ever again.

[1] The doctrine that Christians should seek worldly
power and use it to dominate the culture of any country they
occupy was first expressed by Pat Robertson on his 700 Club
show in the 1980s. On his 700 Club television show
(5-1-86) Robertson said: Gods plan is for His people,
ladies and gentlemen to take dominion What is dominion?
Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and
rule with Him but Hes waiting for us to extend
His dominion And the Lord says, Im going to
let you redeem society. Therell be a reformation .We
are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme
Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. Were not
gonna stand for it. We are going to say, we want freedom
in this country, and we want power  Robertson
said on his program the 700 Club (5-13-86): Weve
sat idly by long enough and said, Well religion and politics
dont mix. Dont you believe it. If we dont
have moral people in government then the only other people that
can be in government are immoral. Thats the only way it
goes. Either you have moral people in there or you have immoral
people.

[2]
The Council for National Policy
(CNP) was founded in 1981 when Timothy LaHaye (author of the
Left Behind series) became the organization's first president.
LaHaye is credited with the idea of the organization. The CNP
has been cloaked in secrecy since its inception. The organization
holds three meetings each year to plan the strategy for implementing
its agenda. The activists meet with their financial backers who
put up the money to execute the agenda of the institution. The
membership list and any speeches made to the members are kept
in strict secrecy. White House officials have appeared before
the group, including President Bush, but
their remarks have been held in secrecy.The
Yurica Report obtained a list of members from several years prior
that reveal the heavy weights in the Christian and hard right
dominionist movement. Here is a sample: Gary Bauer, Pat Boone,
Grover Norquist, Dr. Gary North and R. J. Rushdoony, (North's
father-in-law, the founder
of the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement),
Lt. Col. Oliver North, Pat Robertson, James Robinson, Howard
J. Ruff, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Phyllis Schlafly,
Bob Jones, III, Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Dr. James Kennedy, Beverly
LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Marlin Maddoux, Peter Marshall, Jr., Dr.
James Dobson, Jeffrey Coors, Joseph Coors, Bill Bright, Major
General John K. Singlaub, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Jerry Falwell,
Father Charles Fiore, Alan Gottlieb, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham,
Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, John W. Whitehead, Rev. DonaldWildmon,
Pierre du Pont, Ann Drexel, Arnaud deBorchgrave, Richard DeVos,
Terry Dolan, Sen. William Dannemeyer, Jesse Helms, etc.

[3]
This latter point of an all-volunteer military may appear
to be a surprising inclusion. However, it's worth looking at
the dangers of an all-volunteer military. Dr. M. Scott Peck in
his book The
People of the Lie writes : A draft--involuntary
service--is the only thing that can keep our military sane. Without
it the military will inevitably become not only specialized in
its function but increasingly specialized in its pyschology.
No fresh air will be let in. It will become inbred and reinforce
its own values, and then, when it is once again let loose, it
will run amok as it did in Vietnam. A draft is a painful thing.
But so are insurance premiums; and involuntary service is the
only way we have of ensuring the sanity of our military left
hand.The point is that if we must have a military at all,
it should hurt. As a people we should not toy with the
means of mass destruction without being willing to personally
bear the responsibility of wielding them. If we must kill, let
us not select and train hired killers to do the dirty job for
us and then forget that there's any blood involved. If we must
kill, then let us honestly suffer the agony involved ourselves.
Otherwise we will insulate ourselves from our own deeds, and
as a whole people we will become like the individuals described
in previous sections: evil. For evil arises in the refusal to
acknowledge our own sins. (At page 232)

Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los
Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the
USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles
County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today
plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author
of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.